I’m new to the movement so I have a couple of questions. Is it earning to give the only form of donations? Is there no one time big donors? and is Open Philanthropy included in there? and Givewell?
Hey, good questions, thanks for cross-posting this from the EA Discord :)
OpenPhil is included in the model because the EA movement starts out with some capital. But convincing additional billionaires (or “earning to give” in the sense of “trying to become a billionaire to donate the billions to charity”) is not modelled.
Also, the model does not (yet) include research, which is also part of what OpenPhil does.
One-time big donors could be modelled by increasing the initial capital, but this is kind of a kludge.
Also, once that small model exists, we can reason in ways like: The small model recommends doing direct work or movement building over earning to give, in the limit. Adding billionaires to the mix doesn’t seem like it would change that property (unless “earning to give” includes “taking a shot at becoming a billionaire”.)
Is there no one time big donors? and is Open Philanthropy included in there? and Givewell?
This 2021 post by Ben Todd gives a lot of detail about the financial resources of the EA movement. Here is a useful table:
It seems better to interpret GiveWell as a coordinator/distributor of money, not a source of money.
I’m uncertain what you mean when mentioning big one-time donors. Moskovitz and Bankman-Fried seem to want to donate the vast majority of their money, but for many reasons, it seems better to do this gradually.
Is it earning to give the only form of donations?
I’m not certain I understand what you mean, and you could be intending several different things.
Here’s some verbose comments that might be helpful?
It seems plausible to interpret all current sources of EA funding, including Sam Bankman-Fried, Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna, as from earning to give.
There is no major government source of direct funding if that is what you meant.
More recently, there has been a push from EAs to coordinate or set policy from inside governments and institutions, they would redirect funding, resources or policy in some way. For example, they might change tax or trade policy, e.g. raising alcohol taxes. If you meant “in-kind” donations in some way, this is the only thing that comes to mind.
I’m not an expert and I’m not sure this comment was helpful.
Thank you very much for your interest and please feel free to clarify or ask anything else!
Thank you for answering, it was helpful. So, with “other from of donations” I was referring to “one time donations”. So both of your questions are about the same thing.
I understand that “earning to give” refers only to the donations that came from people who give a percentage of their income every month. At least it sounds like donations from people who are pledging on giving.
Either way if it is actually included or not, Nuno says that it’s irrelevant.
I’m new to the movement so I have a couple of questions. Is it earning to give the only form of donations? Is there no one time big donors? and is Open Philanthropy included in there? and Givewell?
Hey, good questions, thanks for cross-posting this from the EA Discord :)
OpenPhil is included in the model because the EA movement starts out with some capital. But convincing additional billionaires (or “earning to give” in the sense of “trying to become a billionaire to donate the billions to charity”) is not modelled.
Also, the model does not (yet) include research, which is also part of what OpenPhil does.
One-time big donors could be modelled by increasing the initial capital, but this is kind of a kludge.
Also, once that small model exists, we can reason in ways like: The small model recommends doing direct work or movement building over earning to give, in the limit. Adding billionaires to the mix doesn’t seem like it would change that property (unless “earning to give” includes “taking a shot at becoming a billionaire”.)
This 2021 post by Ben Todd gives a lot of detail about the financial resources of the EA movement. Here is a useful table:
It seems better to interpret GiveWell as a coordinator/distributor of money, not a source of money.
I’m uncertain what you mean when mentioning big one-time donors. Moskovitz and Bankman-Fried seem to want to donate the vast majority of their money, but for many reasons, it seems better to do this gradually.
I’m not certain I understand what you mean, and you could be intending several different things.
Here’s some verbose comments that might be helpful?
It seems plausible to interpret all current sources of EA funding, including Sam Bankman-Fried, Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna, as from earning to give.
There is no major government source of direct funding if that is what you meant.
More recently, there has been a push from EAs to coordinate or set policy from inside governments and institutions, they would redirect funding, resources or policy in some way. For example, they might change tax or trade policy, e.g. raising alcohol taxes. If you meant “in-kind” donations in some way, this is the only thing that comes to mind.
I’m not an expert and I’m not sure this comment was helpful.
Thank you very much for your interest and please feel free to clarify or ask anything else!
Thank you for answering, it was helpful. So, with “other from of donations” I was referring to “one time donations”. So both of your questions are about the same thing.
I understand that “earning to give” refers only to the donations that came from people who give a percentage of their income every month. At least it sounds like donations from people who are pledging on giving.
Either way if it is actually included or not, Nuno says that it’s irrelevant.